While the so-called “9/11 mosque”, which is actually instead an Islamic community center, has merits on both sides of the conversation regarding its existence, the conversation should not even be occurring, let alone at the level or with the furor that it currently holds. The simple answer to the situation is Freedom of Religion, via the Constitution’s 1^st Amendment, and that should be enough to silence any of the ludicrous commentary.

Except it apparently isn’t.

There are two core problems that are either confusing or enlarging the issue: a Republican interest in psychotic, election-cycle pandering, and fundamental misrepresentation. It would be slightly more understandable for people to be upset if a traditional-style mosque were opening at the very foot of the fallen towers, but the basic fact is that it’s a community center, no different than a Y with a different religious bent, that’s going inside of a former warehouse. There will be no spires, no minarets, no calls to prayer – none of the traditional items associated with Islamic properties. More importantly, however, is that it is not as close to the World Trade Center as is being portrayed: a few blocks, yes, but bringing such an institution to an area of strip clubs, sex toy shops, and other not-so-Christian-values enterprises is not quite the outrageous event that is being put forth.

The overwhelming problem, however, is one of Constitutionality. As a nation, the United States promotes religious freedom, and has since its founding – why should that be subject to geographical location, local proximity, or specific religions? A small group of fundamentalist individuals with extreme views of their religion has caused great trauma and havoc, but they do not represent their religion, as has been proclaimed so often since the events of September 11^th, 2001 by Muslims worldwide. True that there are those who believe their religion justifies such acts of terror and aggression, but this mindset of justified abhorrent behavior is not limited to Islam – are all Christians held accountable for the slaughtering seen during the Crusades? Are all Germans held responsible, presently, for the actions of a dictator half a century ago?

Islam is merely an extension of Christianity, and yet it’s demonized as some sort of inhuman belief system, especially by those of fervent Christian belief – there is deep irony in the persecution of Islams at the hand of Christians in the United States, because some of the very reasons for the founding of the United States having ties to religious freedom. The 1^st Amendment delivers freedom of religion to all religions and all individuals within the United States, not just selectively chosen groups of people or religious sects, and believing otherwise belies an arrogance and ignorance that is simply unacceptable.

The fact that this is even an issue points to the motives of those arguing against the building of the community center: elections. Republicans are currently in the process of pandering to their extreme base, made even more extreme by the laughable Tea Party, which involves, essentially, the subjugation of any and all cultures and people that aren’t white – Arizona’s racist attempt at immigration law, a scramble to modify or repeal the 14^th Amendment, the Manhattan Islamic center, and various other behaviors of the last year have proven this quite staunchly. After the elections in November, Republicans will have no interest in touching the 14^th Amendment, walking all over the 1^st Amendment, or participating in any other actions that will essentially frame their party as one of an anti-Constitution, anti-minority, pro-white ideology – at least until the next election cycle. This coming from the party that believes, wrongly and without evidence, that President Obama is “walking all over” the Constitution, even while they attempt to do so.

Build the Islamic community center in Manhattan – there’s no reason not to, unless those reasons include racism, religious discrimination, or political pandering.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

The so-called art of argumentation, let alone discussion, seems to have been lost in the last two decades in the realm of politics, religion, and various other intensely personal subject areas, which has been made extremely clear over the last 15 months in America.  So, in the interest of public safety, this is a review of the basics of discussions that involve disagreement.

Rule 1 – Facts

Individuals are entitled to their own opinions, but not facts.  The basis of any discussion is reliant upon core information, and if a party is lacking in the comprehension of such data, they must be open to the realization that their data may not necessarily be correct.

Rule 2 – Equality

Not all opinions are created equal.  There are experts in fields, self-proclaimed experts, and various levels of amateurs/average citizens, where the pyramid of knowledge and expertise begins with the legitimate experts and widens on the way down.  This, quite obviously, means that some individuals are simply better suited to understand, interpret, and hold opinions on topics, especially within the realms of science and mathematics.

Rule 3 – Sacred

Opinions should not be considered sacred or immutable.  Given new data, reliable argumentation, or simply a change of heart, an individual’s beliefs on any given topic should be open to change – the more valued the belief, the less immutable it must become.

Rule 4 – Respect

Just as not all opinions are created equal, not all opinions need be respected.  In the event that some belief is so demonstrably ludicrous as to be laughable, and the individual refuses to be open to change, this opinion is not worthy of respect.  Only when beliefs are defensible, reasoned, and researched can they demand respect.

Rule 5 – Emotion

A reasoned argument is not an epic battle between good and evil, but an exchange of ideas between reasonable people.  There is no need to become overly emotional or feel personally affronted, since such a discussion is not a judgment of personal character.

Rule 6 – Winning

There isn’t necessarily a “winner” in an argument.  Even if there is a so-called winner, where one party convinces the other of their position, this is not a true loss to the “losing” party – losing an argument is not rescinding personal ideals, but instead reforming false, faulty, or otherwise incorrect beliefs.

Rule 7 – Death

The last, and most important rule, is that no-one dies in an argument.  If the argument goes so far as to become weaponized, it’s no longer a rational exchange of ideas, and should be discontinued.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.